Piper?

the 6 cylinder engines run nice and smooth compared to the 4 cylinder
ones.
That was one thing I noticed fast about my arrow, its also something
others,
who do not fly in 6 cylinder planes notice as soon as the engine starts.

Yeah, it's definitely a different sound and feel. Now, when I go for a ride
in a 4-cylinder plane, the engine sounds really odd to my ears.

And you sure get spoiled with climb and speed in a hurry. Last time I rode
in a Warrior, it felt like we were standing still.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53...
I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
used Pathfinder or Dakota.

It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
available in a 4-seat aircraft.

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.


For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

On 27 Apr 2004 17:26:02 -0700, (Dave) wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53...
I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
used Pathfinder or Dakota.

It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
available in a 4-seat aircraft.

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.

For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

Oooo. This oughta be good!

Don

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.

For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

Oooo. This oughta be good!

I don't think you could find a "good" Six in that price range. "Decent"
maybe -- but not "a perfect 10" like our Pathfinder. You'd end up having
to put out some serious cash to raise that Six to the cosmetic and low-time
engine levels of our plane.

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.

The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
fuselage for no apparent reason.

That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the

I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings.......
.....


Trip

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.

The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
fuselage for no apparent reason.

That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

raj, since this went so far off topic and no one answered your question,
yes the archer is a very good plane. the engine can take allot of abuse
and not have any problems.

raj wrote:

I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

Is new worth it if you can afford it?

thanks

Raj

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.